Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

A DNA analyzer should be able to detect that it is being fed LCN DNA and every result generated from it should caution/warn that it is LCN and state "This instrument is not designed to process LCN and the resultant output data is suspect". Evan a deaf Italian judge should be able to read that.

It is foreseeable that the machine may be misused to process and evaluate forensic evidence, and there should be no design leeway for it to be misused that way.

I agree with Grinder. There is a reasonable belief that an "expert" will use the technology as an, er, expert.

It's like the old joke. A computer store advertised that their computers worked under Windows.

Then the store was sued when the purchaser tried to load an Apple OS into it. The claim was, "It should have worked, because I had positioned the computer in a room under one of my windows....."

 

[acbytesla]

I always use the Imperial system & mentally convert to metric if I need to - at least I still use the proper pound (weight) instead of the smaller US pound

(to our cousins over the pond, a pint's a pound the world around (it isn't really) to us who invented it, a pint of water weighs a pound & a quarter)

Sorry for the derail.

NP. I'm only joking about the metric system. We should have converted in the 70s...But politics got in the way and I haven't heard of them thinking about changing since.

 

[acbytesla]

A DNA analyzer should be able to detect that it is being fed LCN DNA and every result generated from it should caution/warn that it is LCN and state "This instrument is not designed to process LCN and the resultant output data is suspect". Evan a deaf Italian judge should be able to read that.

It is foreseeable that the machine may be misused to process and evaluate forensic evidence, and there should be no design leeway for it to be misused that way.

I have to wonder how many of these are used by law enforcement and how many are used for other purposes. Something tells me that the use in Crime labs makes up only a small fraction of their customer base...but then again, maybe it is actually much larger.. I'm curious.

 

[acbytesla]

I'd like to add a few other lawsuits that should be filed:

1. The word processing hardware and software as the manufacturers should clearly have seen the misuse of their technology.

2. The gift paper manufacturer should have recognized that their paper wasn't free of DNA from the factory.

3. The booty makers as they were not being used properly.

4. The glove manufacturers.

By suing every company that anything to do with the case every aspect of the case could be detailed in the suits' complaints.

What do you think lawyers are for Grinder? Reductio ad absurdum

 

[AmyStrange]

I'll take an eight ball of white please...

-

NP. I'm only joking about the metric system. We should have converted in the 70s...But politics got in the way and I haven't heard of them thinking about changing since.

-

Interestingly enough, drug users and dealers understand the conversion from ounces to grams (and vice versa) better than most other Americans do, but that's just my opinion,

d

-

 

[Grinder]

Interestingly enough, drug users and dealers understand the conversion from ounces to grams (and vice versa) better than most other Americans do, but that's just my opinion,

28.3

 

[Desert Fox]

A DNA analyzer should be able to detect that it is being fed LCN DNA and every result generated from it should caution/warn that it is LCN and state "This instrument is not designed to process LCN and the resultant output data is suspect". Evan a deaf Italian judge should be able to read that.

It is foreseeable that the machine may be misused to process and evaluate forensic evidence, and there should be no design leeway for it to be misused that way.

Was LCN DNA testing even a thing when the machine was designed?
Besides, machinery is often used for experiments which they were not originally designed for.

 

[AmyStrange]

28.3495231

-

28.3

-

close enough... here's your cigar,

d

-

 

[Grinder]

I am correct that the biggest single flaw in the testing was that they didn't amplify all of the below acceptable grade "samples" and therefore it can't be known what the contamination consisted of?

I in way wish to dispute, argue or in any way delve into the details of the DNA reports and what is wrong with every aspect but I would like it explained in the simplest way what the most important errors are and what they mean.

From reading the Wiki it seems that some of the controls showed contamination because the number of cycles needed to get to testable DNA was less than 50 meaning there was some DNA present which means contamination. Batch 4 was used as an example. What items were tested in that batch? When the knife and bra were tested, what sort of control errors appeared. I'm sure this has been covered, my apologies but if a concise answer could be provided I'd appreciated it.

Earlier there was speculation that confirmation bias could have entered the analysis and Meredith's DNA could have been "found" from allele reading done improperly. Is that true or must Meredith's DNA have found its way to the knife by contamination or secondary transfer?

Contemporary reports had the December 18th search coordinated with the defense, that may have delayed it, and they were supposed to be in a van that could see the video, hence the showing of things to the camera.

Would it be possible to write a simple account of the two important pieces and what was specifically done wrong for both of them?

 

[Grinder]

I am correct that the biggest single flaw in the testing was that they didn't amplify all of the below acceptable grade "samples" and therefore it can't be known what the contamination consisted of?

I in way wish to dispute, argue or in any way delve into the details of the DNA reports and what is wrong with every aspect but I would like it explained in the simplest way what the most important errors are and what they mean.

From reading the Wiki it seems that some of the controls showed contamination because the number of cycles needed to get to testable DNA was less than 50 meaning there was some DNA present which means contamination. Batch 4 was used as an example. What items were tested in that batch? When the knife and bra were tested, what sort of control errors appeared. I'm sure this has been covered, my apologies but if a concise answer could be provided I'd appreciated it.

Earlier there was speculation that confirmation bias could have entered the analysis and Meredith's DNA could have been "found" from allele reading done improperly. Is that true or must Meredith's DNA have found its way to the knife by contamination or secondary transfer?

Contemporary reports had the December 18th search coordinated with the defense, that may have delayed it, and they were supposed to be in a van that could see the video, hence the showing of things to the camera.

Would it be possible to write a simple account of the two important pieces and what was specifically done wrong for both of them?

 

[AmyStrange]

nothing amplified should still result in nothing

-

I am correct that the biggest single flaw in the testing was that they didn't amplify all of the below acceptable grade "samples" and therefore it can't be known what the contamination consisted of?

I in way wish to dispute, argue or in any way delve into the details of the DNA reports and what is wrong with every aspect but I would like it explained in the simplest way what the most important errors are and what they mean.

From reading the Wiki it seems that some of the controls showed contamination because the number of cycles needed to get to testable DNA was less than 50 meaning there was some DNA present which means contamination. Batch 4 was used as an example. What items were tested in that batch? When the knife and bra were tested, what sort of control errors appeared. I'm sure this has been covered, my apologies but if a concise answer could be provided I'd appreciated it.

Earlier there was speculation that confirmation bias could have entered the analysis and Meredith's DNA could have been "found" from allele reading done improperly. Is that true or must Meredith's DNA have found its way to the knife by contamination or secondary transfer?

Contemporary reports had the December 18th search coordinated with the defense, that may have delayed it, and they were supposed to be in a van that could see the video, hence the showing of things to the camera.

Would it be possible to write a simple account of the two important pieces and what was specifically done wrong for both of them?

-

One of the things I think I understand from this discussion about the 7700, and correct me if I'm wrong here, was that one of the controls was to do a magnification while there was nothing in the machine, which should have ended up with nothing, but the result was a little of something instead of nothing; which to me, screams contamination,

d

ETA: or at the least should show machine error, or that something was wrong with the machine.
-

 

[acbytesla]

Was LCN DNA testing even a thing when the machine was designed?
Besides, machinery is often used for experiments which they were not originally designed for.

LCN testing is basically the same as non- LCN DNA testing, but put through more cycles. The problem with it isn't that it can't necessarily get a result but that it is more prone to contamination and it is easier to confuse stutter with peaks.

Labs that do LCN testing have to take significantly more precautions to prevent contamination. Kind of like a clean room making a CPU. Air handlers that filter dust, changing gloves and outer clothes regularly.

 

[Desert Fox]

LCN testing is basically the same as non- LCN DNA testing, but put through more cycles. The problem with it isn't that it can't necessarily get a result but that it is more prone to contamination and it is easier to confuse stutter with peaks.

Labs that do LCN testing have to take significantly more precautions to prevent contamination. Kind of like a clean room making a CPU. Air handlers that filter dust, changing gloves and outer clothes regularly.

One item I am thinking of is that you can overclock many CPUs and in fact mine is specifically designed for overclocking (although I have never done it.) Now, mine does warn you that the warranty is voided if you overclock.

Still, in this case you can hardly blame the manufacturer of the machine for overclocking. Don't think a lawsuit would be real effective. Assuming that data being discussed is as argued, might be able to get a letter out of the manufacturer that the data is invalid if one requests.

 

[Dan O.]

LCN testing is basically the same as non- LCN DNA testing, but put through more cycles. The problem with it isn't that it can't necessarily get a result but that it is more prone to contamination and it is easier to confuse stutter with peaks.

Labs that do LCN testing have to take significantly more precautions to prevent contamination. Kind of like a clean room making a CPU. Air handlers that filter dust, changing gloves and outer clothes regularly.

I would say that preventing contamination is basically impossible. There is only one DNA lab in the world that has never had contamination and that lab is in dreamland. To handle any DNA as a lab you need to understand contamination, know how to test for it and have appropriate models to use when analyzing results so you know when results have been insufficiently differentiated to rule out contamination.

 

[acbytesla]

One item I am thinking of is that you can overclock many CPUs and in fact mine is specifically designed for overclocking (although I have never done it.) Now, mine does warn you that the warranty is voided if you overclock.

Still, in this case you can hardly blame the manufacturer of the machine for overclocking. Don't think a lawsuit would be real effective. Assuming that data being discussed is as argued, might be able to get a letter out of the manufacturer that the data is invalid if one requests.

I like Strozzi's idea but I know that Amanda wouldn't win. That said, she might be able to get them to comment about how their equipment was misused.

 

[acbytesla]

I would say that preventing contamination is basically impossible. There is only one DNA lab in the world that has never had contamination and that lab is in dreamland. To handle any DNA as a lab you need to understand contamination, know how to test for it and have appropriate models to use when analyzing results so you know when results have been insufficiently differentiated to rule out contamination.

I've read many arguments against the use of LCN for criminal purposes. That it should never be used as the basis of conviction, but it is fine for more benign purposes.

 

[Strozzi]

One item I am thinking of is that you can overclock many CPUs and in fact mine is specifically designed for overclocking (although I have never done it.) Now, mine does warn you that the warranty is voided if you overclock.

Still, in this case you can hardly blame the manufacturer of the machine for overclocking. Don't think a lawsuit would be real effective. Assuming that data being discussed is as argued, might be able to get a letter out of the manufacturer that the data is invalid if one requests.

Who said anything about winning a lawsuit? Winning a court judgement is secondary to putting the issue on trial in a real court where the manufacturer's scientists are crossexamined and defend their machine by repudiating Stefanoni and spelling out how she abused the machine process to derive false results! Doing it under the threat of a $100 million judgement propels the issue into the headlines and talkshows and underscores how much Amanda has been injured by this.

ETA: Suppose a jury of non-scientists decides that the manufacturer foresaw or should have foreseen that their DNA analyzer sold to an Italian police lab could be misused to falsify evidence and that the manufacturer failed to design in cautions to prevent that? There could be a favorable award for Amanda.

How dare the manufacturer sell a machine for DNA forensic analysis to a police lab that is so incompetent that the lab director and her supervisor contend there has never been DNA contamination in the lab! That's like selling electric cattle prods to the Chinese prison service and claiming you did not realize they might be misused.
(Do you like my analogy? . )

 

[kwill]

Who said anything about winning a lawsuit? Winning a court judgement is secondary to putting the issue on trial in a real court where the manufacturer's scientists are crossexamined and defend their machine by repudiating Stefanoni and spelling out how she abused the machine process to derive false results! Doing it under the threat of a $100 million judgement propels the issue into the headlines and talkshows and underscores how much Amanda has been injured by this.

Strozzi, I fully appreciate the genius of this idea, and I think the possibility exists that it could work exactly as you say. Since we're all skeptics here though, I need to point out that it could backfire badly.

Can you picture it? Convicted Murderer Amanda Knox Tries to Escape Prison with Frivolous Lawsuit!

If that became the prominent meme, it would hurt her and Raffaele. That said, I don't have a better idea.

 

[Strozzi]

Strozzi, I fully appreciate the genius of this idea, and I think the possibility exists that it could work exactly as you say. Since we're all skeptics here though, I need to point out that it could backfire badly.

Can you picture it? Convicted Murderer Amanda Knox Tries to Escape Prison with Frivolous Lawsuit!

If that became the prominent meme, it would hurt her and Raffaele. That said, I don't have a better idea.

Backfire? How? You think Italian tabloids might smear Knox? They already have! Or that an
Italian court would have found her innocent, but now finds her guilty? They already have!

It would not be a frivolous lawsuit if the manufacturer tried to have it dismissed and a judge ordered it to proceed. Nor would it be frivolous if it puts the issue on the evening news. Nor would it be frivolous if the manufacturer's scientists repudiate Stefanini for misusing the machine process. It would not be frivolous if testimony developed in the lawsuit is used to challenge extradition.

And if she actually won damages, that would not be frivolous.

 

[RandyN]

-


-

One of the things I think I understand from this discussion about the 7700, and correct me if I'm wrong here, was that one of the controls was to do a magnification while there was nothing in the machine, which should have ended up with nothing, but the result was a little of something instead of nothing; which to me, screams contamination,

d

ETA: or at the least should show machine error, or that something was wrong with the machine.
-

Well this is it exactly! And as if even more proof is needed (its not) these control sample runs have been kept hidden, or refused to the defense almost from the start. The prosecution claims to release everything they "think" is necessary. Well sure...we can see that now.

This data proves conclusively that the lab or someone in charge had a great desire to keep data unavailable... there is a reason for that and it is certainy not a mistake or accidental. It is a corrupt act designed to help convict and jail completely innocent persons.

And this is just the lab data. Grinder forgot to sue the data company in charge of recording and tapping, the medical department at the jail, the prison guard union, the judicial board of review...ahhhhttttt they dont have that. The computer burning department, the cell phone data department, The CCTV collection unit, the Super witness collection department (with special emphasis on the collector of Nara, Quintinvale and Toto). Oh....that should be far more than enough.